UPDATED: N80bn Fraud: Ex-Kogi Gov Yahaya Bello Loses Bid To Stop Trial

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has rejected a bid by ex-Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, to halt his trial in the hearing of the N80.2bn fraud charges brought against him.

Bello who has gone into hiding has asked the court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, through his team of lawyers that there is an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, before the Court of Appeal, against the contempt application filed by the defendant against the EFCC chairman, Ola Olukayode.

However, the court held that the application can not be upheld since the applicant is in hiding and not physically in court.

Bello’s team of lawyers led by Abdulwahab Mohammed had made the application in their bid to free the former governor from prosecution in the case brought against him by the EFCC.

Justice Nwite held that, “The application cannot be entertained unless the defendant is present in the court.

“In the absence of the defendant in court, the motion on notice filed by the complainant can only be conducted if the defendant is in court”.

Details shortly…

According to Justice Nwite, Bello’s decision to file the application “is clearly showing his intention not to present himself for trial”.

“The law is settled that he who disobeys an order of court and shows disrespect to the court cannot expect a favourable discretion of the court,” the judge said.

“The honourable thing the defendant would have done was to obey the order of court by making himself available.

“Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates all persons and authority to give effect to orders of court.

“He has wilfully disobeyed the order of this court. An order of court of competent jurisdiction, no matter how it was obtained, subsists until it is set aside.

“A party who refuses to obey an order of court after becoming aware of it, is in contempt of court.

“He is not entitled to be heard or granted a favourable discretion,” he further ruled.

He stressed that the refusal of the defendant to make himself available is solely to truncate the arraignment and prevent the court from proceeding further in this case.

The “refusal of the defendant to make himself available in an attempt to truncate this court and make it practically impossible for the court to assume jurisdiction in this criminal trial.

“He ought to make himself available. He cannot sit in the comfort of his home to file applications before this court.

“The defendant has no atom or regard for the court.

“Clearly, the defendant is taking this court for granted.

“In view of the foregoing analysis, I am of the view and I, so hold that, no application can be moved or heard unless the defendant is present before the court to take his plea,” Justice Nwite held.